from the declaratory-judgment dept

Another day, another story about Charles Carreon digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. This time, it starts with him threatening to sue both the person who set up the parody site charles-carreon.comand Register.com, where the domain was registered. Register.com failed to live up to its own "privacy" promises regarding registration info, and exposed the name and personal info of the person who registered the site after receiving a letter from Carreon, despite direct promises to the person's lawyer. After another phone call in which the lawyer, Paul Levy, warned Register.com that it faced breach of contract charges, it made the info private again.

However, Carreon continued to threaten the blogger, leading to a rather bizarre exchange between Carreon and Levy, which relates to some history that Carreon has had with Levy's organization, Public Citizen, and a case we wrote about last year, involving a website run by Carreon and his wife. In the end, the owner of charles-carreon.com felt sufficiently threatened by Carreon's claims that s/he has decided to file for declaratory judgment to stop Carreon from suing. Part of the reason for seeking declaratory judgment was Carreon's direct threat to go after the blogger at a later date in various jurisdictions. He also threatened to use the DMCA takedown process to try to censor the site, because it uses a photo he claims copyright over. There's significant irony in the fact that Carreon is now threatening to abuse the DMCA process to stifle speech -- when what kicked this whole thing off was his DMCA-based defense of Funnyjunk and its failure to remove copyright-covered images.

Carreon's threat-letter response to Levy is something to behold, and can be viewed towards the bottom of the filing (pdf and embedded below). Here's a key part:

As far as when and where I will sue your client, be certain that it will occur if your client does not cede the domain, and advise her of ten things:

There there is essentially no statute of limitations on this claim, and the prima facie laches defense would not kick in for at least three years.

That venue in this action can be validly laid in at least three places, maybe four, if she doesn't live in Arizona, Florida, or California.

That I am capable of employing counsel to handle my claim against her, who will incur attorneys fees and seek recovery of the same. I filed pro se against Inman simply for sake of convenience and the need for speed, and not from a lack of resources.

That the law in this area cannot be predicted with certainty, will evolve substantially over the next three years, during which I will be using digital forensics to establish actual trademark damages in addition to seeking the maximum cybersquatting penalty of $100,000.

That a judgment that recites that the domain was obtained by fraud upon the registrar, in the form of a misrepresentation that she did not know of my trademark on the name, might well be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

That a judgment can be renewed indefinitely until collected, and that California judgments accrue 10% interest, which can compound once ever ten years by capitalizing the accumulated interest.

That you cannot guarantee that Public Citizen will provide her with free legal services on June 1, 2015, when I may very well send the process server 'round to her door.

That I have the known capacity to litigate appeals for years (check my Westlaw profile, and of course, the drawn out history of Penguin v. American Buddha, now in its third year, having passed through the Second Circuit and the NYCA, and still hung up in personal jurisdiction in the SDNY).

That the litigation, being of first impression in virtually every Circuit, grounded in a federal question, involving a registered trademark, and dispositive of many open issues in the field of Internet commerce and speech, might very well continue for a decade.

That Public Citizen might well be unable and/or unwilling to provide her with representation until the resolution of such an extended course of litigation.

He goes on to chide Levy and Public Citizen for "leaping to the defense of someone who is in league with a person who has harnessed the lowest impulses of puerile, vituperative Internet youth to generate a Charitable Fund that has been used to bribe two major charities into tacitly endorsing a campaign that is utterly devoid of charitable purpose, and is a mere cover for a hate campaign."

Uh, yeah. At best, this demonstrates that Carreon still has no clue about what's happening. He still thinks that there's some big campaign against him, and he's still lashing out without realizing that every time he does so he just draws more negative attention to himself. Most people tend to learn that when doing something makes the situation worse, they shouldn't keep doing it. Carreon seems unable to make that basic connection. The rather blatant threats against the blog owner -- to go after her in multiples jurisdictions and at a later date when Public Citizen might not be able to take her case -- are examples of the exact wrong way to handle something like this. It's an old-fashioned lawyer attitude: take an extreme position that you can back down from later. But in this case, it just seems to display -- quite vividly for the judge -- Carreon's true intentions: to be such a nuisance that people stop mocking him. One of these days, he may discover that each time he does that, he's only encouraging more and more ridicule.

Oh, and in the meantime, as for his attempt at getting a temporary restraining order to stop the money raised from being distributed, the judge has asked for proof that the charities have received the money -- as has been stated by IndieGoGo and Matthew Inman. If that is shown to be true, it seems likely that the judge will find no reason to consider the TRO request any more, since it's meaningless.

Re: Re: Re: If he bit off the bloggers ear ?

Re: Re: Re: Re: If he bit off the bloggers ear ?

Yes they are. This new-fangled internet thing is just the youth of America's way to stick it to their parents. Nobody mature or serious ever bothers to use the worthless pile of self-effacement that the internet obviously is. Right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If he bit off the bloggers ear ?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If he bit off the bloggers ear ?

HEY! I trademark/copyrighted/patented/registered/callednotakesbacksies the phrase "get off my lawn" as well as "get off my cyber lawn" and the always popular "why is this flaming paper bag on my porch"!

Re: Re: If he bit off the bloggers ear ?

You know what it is about Carreon? He is from an age when people properly feared crossing lawyers, and there was really no meaningful recourse to a lawyer bully picking on you.

Carreon can't comprehend that in the internet age, if he is a major jerk, everyone sees. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone...I've noticed people bringing this up in conversation who normally don't spend much time on the internet. He is creating a giant asterisk by his name, which will follow him the rest of his life.

I don't think he cares much about how people see him, tho.
The going after charities was a tell tale sign of how much he cares about negative PR. All he cares about is the Law and currently, how to use it to destroy Inman.
But really, we have seen this from lawyers before and we will see it again.

100% Legal injustice happens all the time.
People are acting like it's the first time ever it has been attempted or seen, they also think that public opinion will change case law.
As if lawyers ever only work for ethical and moral causes... ( are people that delusional )

I do question the injustice part of this case, a defamation case is just that, and I don't see the injustice if Inman has to pay funnyjunk $20,000, for calling them "theives". But then again, I never bought into the whole "good defenseless cartoonist" narrative to begin with.

Re:

> I hope a copy of this is forwarded to
> the Judge in his pending case in CA. It
> appears he is more than willing to abuse
> the courts time in pursuing claims of
> questionable merit simply to attack people
> for having a bad opinion of him and his
> actions.

I was going to say that this letter is pretty clear evidence of his intent to use matters of venue and manipulate the statute of limitations for no other reason than to creat hardship on the defendant. A big ethical no-no for lawyers.

Most of the time it's hard to prove, but this genius just handed the evidence over to opposing counsel on a silver platter.

This is actually going beyond funny and into the realm of unbelievably sad. My question is this: how long can Carreon ( funny name for a bottom feeder ) keep this before it becomes harassment and gets him both disbarred and a jail sentence? I mean... He's embarrassing his colleagues! Right?

Wow...

I know this has been said before, but...

Has he even heard of Jack Thompson? Maybe Carreon sees him as a role model to strive or surpass his legacy.

Actually, maybe that was his master plan all along: to become infamous and synonymous with "internet crackpot." I mean, he's already known as "Carreon the Critic" and the creator of the "Carreon Effect."

Re:

No, it's moving at top speed, it's just managed to defy the laws of physics after careening off the tracks, plowing through several cornfields, and seemingly going airborne before nose-diving into a volcano.

I hope Carreon really does postpone the case for 3 years. It'll make the same amount of sense then as it does now, and maybe after chilling for 3 years he'd do what he should've already done by now: look back on the matter and think, "what in the world was I so upset about?"

This level of bizarre behavior has me starting to wonder if there is something physically wrong in his brain. What would it take to force him to see a psychologist and/or force him to have a CT scan or MRI to prove that he doesn't have a brain tumor that would be affecting his behavior.

The heartless one has a point

"generate a Charitable Fund that has been used to bribe two major charities into tacitly endorsing a campaign that is utterly devoid of charitable purpose, and is a mere cover for a hate campaign"

I agree with this, (again... flame me for it please, I know you wanna)
Hate funnyjunk because of Inmans words... Donate to charity to make all defense of funnyjunk seem unethical....seems legit! (that's what happened)Proof of the effects (self centered version):
If I make ANY negative comment about Inman, the supporters come out in angry defense mode, in support of the poor, kind, charitable, defenseless cartoonist.
(that's a really accurate description...yeah..*cough *cough *bullshit *cough)
Also... You all forced me to marry him, remember ?... I am his wife, facepalm.gif The BEST outcome of all this manufactured drama

1. "Carreon The Evilllll" ® wins against "Inman the manipulative" ™

2. The charities get the money.

3. The Inman supporters see Inman for real.

4. Carreon get's a bj from his wife.
( the real reason he is fighting so hard, I did promise you that bj IF you win sweetheart )

5. ???????

6. Profit!TL;DR:

I am inviting you to hate me because.....
you give a fuck about a person that, you shouldn't give a fuck about.

Re: Re: Re: The heartless one has a point

Re: The heartless one has a point

Why shouldn't we "give a fuck" about Inman? He's been providing free (originally created) humour for years now, yeah, that must be it, the internet is srs buisness! Get rid of all that funny junk off the internet, oh, wait... You see what I did there?

At the very least , call me a....... Ladyboy !

Last week The Economist magazine profiled Matthew Inman about the creation and revenue of his comic, “The Oatmeal.” They said that he did $1,000 a day in sales on a typical day and that he earned $70,000 in sales on a single day last year on Black Friday.

Re: Re: Re: The heartless one has a point

People gave money because fuck bullshit legal threats, not to help him fight anything. He didn't ask for donation to pay the 20 grand to make the lawsuit go away, he did it to show that the internet doesn't stand for that sort of bullshit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The heartless one has a point

Of course it generates traffic. He runs a website it is his job to generate traffic. He could have never shown the letter and quietly told Carreon to fuck off. Wait, people who live off money generated by their website try and get people to go to their website? Holy shit man what a fucking conspiracy.

But quietly telling someone to fuck off isn't nearly as effective as having the internet tell them to fuck off and if you haven't noticed funnyjunk has not pursued the claims they said they would if they didn't get their 20K.

Next your gonna tell me that commercials are designed to sell products and strippers don't really love me.

Your use of ellipsis is irritating and pointless. End your fucking sentence or complete your thought.

Re: Re: Re: The heartless one has a point

Still not sure how Inman's being successful on his own merits (can you prove otherwise? I can't see it) has any bearing at all on this. The charity drive was a giant 'fuck you' on a baseless lawsuit. Giving other peoples' money to charity? That's kinda the point of a charity DRIVE.

As to your other points about 'link scamming history' and 'free manufactured publicity,' you do not address these points with any actual proof. It'd be great to see those citations, but without them you're asking people to believe you based on your word, alone.

And WHO jumped to wild conclusions ?

Yeah... my tinfoil hat protects me from people taking my money and giving it to charity.
Other benefits of tinfoil hats...
They reflect arguments from people who willfully ignore facts.
They are quite fashionable(Lie).
They can be converted into many things, like a ball (I am creative)

Not to be confused with Aluminum Foil hats, crazy people who jump to conclusions wear those.

Re: And WHO jumped to wild conclusions ?

nobody's money was "taken". People donated and it was their choice to donate fully knowing where the money was going.

If funnyjunk had not asked for $20K and the charity campaign existed, my assumption is that less people would have donated. That doesn't matter. People felt good about donating because it allowed them to give to a good cause and at the same time say "Fuck Off" to funnyjunk for abusive legal practices.

Re:

It's not your opinion it your writing style and your attitude. It's purposefully annoying, it is annoying, and its littering every fucking article.

So great job on being annoying. Good job wasting time writing a hundred posts a day in the most annoying form of netizen grammar and syntax you can. You really add to the discussion by not learning how to use ellipses.

I give about 0.001 fucks about Inman and only came in here to see if there was more crazies from Tera. I just happen to be sick enough of you to take the time to tell you that your an annoying peasant.

So gratz troll have some rage tears to lube yourself while you masturbate your pathetic intellect.

why..... thankyou !

Appreciated appreciation.... is ....appreciation appreciated !

People ALWAYS take a side and stick to it dominantly... that is the key, also a reason WHY facts that contradict the perceived narrative are somewhat unsettling.
No need to twist, imply, use fallacies etc.. aka(a gift from Internet creator, Al Gore)

Re: Just wow

Re: Just wow

Mmmm. Popcorn. We really should turn this into a proper tv show! We could call it "Carry on, Mr Carrion!", nailing half a dozen puns, jokes and references in the title alone. Only... Where will we ever find a talking buzzard? What's you feeling on sock puppets?

The funny part is that all of the points are correct. You may not LIKE them, but they are factual and correct. He appears to be a bit of a loose cannon, but perhaps his stuff is more a commentary on the litigious nature of the US system, and not of anything else.

Re:

Just because you are able to do something under the law doesn't make it right. The laws as written can be used to threaten and harass pretty much anyone. Carreon is an idiot his only last legacy will be the phrase Carreon-effect, and when that shows up on wikipedia I fully expect him to sue about it.

Re: Re:

What about Urban Dictionary? Or maybe TV Tropes? Know Your Meme? Once you get someone to write some information on those sites, then it's likely that Carreon will sue them as well. Though I'm betting that he'll be dead if he even take on TV Tropes...

Re:

... all of the points are correct. You may not LIKE them, but they are factual and correct

Mr Carreon writes in point 9:

That the litigation, being of first impression in virtually every Circuit, grounded in a federal question, involving a registered trademark, and dispositive of many open issues in the field of Internet commerce and speech, might very well continue for a decade.

We can all read: Mr Carreon asserts, as fact, that his purported cause of action against Doe is a question “of first impression in virtually every Circuit.”

I have explained to you that Bosley Medical Center, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005), and Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Co., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th 2004), both preclude the use of trademark law to stop my client's use of a web site posted at a domain name that uses your trademark as a site for nonp-commercial [sic] criticism directed at you. There are, indeed, numerous cases in other circuits that protect the right to use a domain name in the form www.trademark.com for a web site about the trademark holder against a variety of trademark claims. Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008);; Lamparello v. Falwell, 430 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005);TMI v. Maxwell, 368 F.3d 433, 436-438 (5th Cir 2004); Taubmain v. Webfeats, 319 F3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003).

Defendant Michael Kremer was dissatisfied with the hair restoration services provided to him by the Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. In a bald-faced effort to get even, Kremer started a website at www.BosleyMedical.com, which, to put it mildly, was uncomplimentary of the Bosley Medical Institute. The problem is that "Bosley Medical" is the registered trademark of the Bosley Medical Institute, Inc., which brought suit against Kremer for trademark infringement and like claims. Kremer argues that noncommercial use of the mark is not actionable as infringement under the Lanham Act. Bosley responds that Kremer is splitting hairs.

Like the district court, we agree with Kremer. We hold today that the noncommercial use of a trademark as the domain name of a website — the subject of which is consumer commentary about the products and services represented by the mark — does not constitute infringement under the Lanham Act. . . .

Uh, as a Floridian and someone who doesn't law, what is Carreon blabbing in his second demand? Then again, why is he using California law when... man, this guy is giving me a headache trying to figure out the complexity of this amount of stupid.

All of this is making me want to shout to Carreon "everything you know is wrong!" Seriously, this guy tries, but he's fighting an evolving creature that's kinda unforgiving. If he has any smarts left in that head of his, he should stop and look at the situation he is in before he does any further damage. Maybe taking a breather instead of frantically digging will help understand what is going on and maybe, just maybe, he could redeem whatever he has left of himself (but that's a bit of a stretch at this point...)

Really Carreon, listen to us. Sure we like to egg you, but you REALLY got to stop before you blow up! ... But if you don't want to listen, then keep on digging. It'll be fun to watch you explode into a million pieces once you lose everything in this fight.

Looking over his career to date, it does look like it's been spiralling around the plughole for most of this century. The sad loss of his son, 5 years ago probably hasn't helped. I really think this man needs help, help he won't get unless the courts put a stop to his nonsense about this.

threat

Re: threat

" I am afraid of Charles Carreon. "

Why ?

In his letter he openly. blatantly admitted he intended to use the law as a sword, not a shield. As someone stated above, there isn't a Judge in the country that will be happy about being used as a tool to harass and threaten, and that what Carreon clearly states his intention is. It IS clear cut, Parody IS protected speech. If Carreon was a force to be reckoned with at one time, he isn't anymore. He just undermined anything he is doing now and may try in the future with this filing. He is now as fearsome a feather.

Re:

lol, next up Carreon suing funnyjunk for hosting image, claims to represent himself and funnyjunk...plays both defense and prosecution. Asks himself an impossible question, and short circuits like the androids of Harry Mudd.

Jes a Question

I have a question about this and other lawyer-stupidity documented on this website - At some point, can the idiots just be disbarred ? I'd think that a judge/employer/bar association would eventually have enought evidence (and inspiration) to remove obvious incompetents.

The Maryland Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney admitted to practice in 2008.

The attorney was found in violation of multuple ethics rules in three complaints. One of the matters involved her failure of provide competent representation to a number of homeless clients. The matters were accepted by the attorney on a pro bono basis through the Homeless Persons Representation Project and involved expungement petitions that were time-sensitive.

The attorney had entered into a diversion agreement with the Bar but failed to honor its terms. She also had made false statements to Bar Counsel and failed to respond to the bar complaints. (Mike Frisch)

I think it's important for the general population to understand how the bar is regulating itself.

( Of course, I think there's a lot of things that I think the general population ought to interest itself in... and obviously people just don't have time for that kind of involved citizenship. )

Re: Re:

I've tried reading it, but my eyes got tired from staring at all of that red and some of what she wrote (is there ANYTHING that isn't by her, other than her copy/pasting everything?!) is complete nonsense. Though it was an interesting read overall. There are some good finds in there that could be used against the Carreons in the future... should an opportunity rises.

Re: Re: Re:

No the entire forum is just her and Charles from what I could find. Fucking hilarious stuff in there though, worth putting up with the ugliness. I waded through a few different posts and there is pure comedic gold scattered everywhere. The one about Nader's handlers being fascist commies because the won't use her ramblings in his newsletter and moderate her facebook posts is great.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Huh... well, I'm guessing that there were other posts on that site, but they were deleted and the only thing remains are hers and her husband's posts. Yeah, must be great to own your own forums and not let anyone try to defend themselves against a couple of crazies.

Issue of First Impression? Expressly Vexatious Litigation? Really?

"9. That the litigation, being of first impression in virtually every Circuit, grounded in a federal question, involving a registered trademark, and dispositive of many open issues in the field of Internet commerce and speech, might very well continue for a decade."

Actually, it's been litigated a whole lot. It's called a "gripe site," which is described as "a web site established to criticize an institution such as a corporation, union, government body, or political figure. Not surprisingly, powerful institutions often do not take kindly to being criticized, and they have invented a variety of ways to try to suppress the speech of their adversaries."

Perhaps those funds at your disposal should be used to fire up a Westlaw subscription.

And Chuck, brazenly threatening to forum shop and to prolong litigation for the express purpose of outspending and wearing down the opposition is a big fat bucket of ethical violations. But you know that, right?

"Finally, as a longtime member of Public Citizen and major contributor to Ralph Nader's last presidential bid, I am utterly disgusted to see the organization he founded leaping to the defense of someone who is in league with

a person who has harnessed the lowest impulses of puerile, vituperative Internet youth to generate a Charitable Fund that has been used to bribe two major charities into tacitly endorsing a campaign that is utterly devoid of charitable purpose, and is a mere cover for a hate campaign.
Apparently Public Citizen is now a proponent of charitable fraud and misrepresentation, and feels that mysoginistic hate speech trumps a lawyer's right to keep control of his trademarked image in the field of legal services, where a lawyer's name is everything.
The membership news I regularly receive from Public Citizen about mislabeled drugs and health care fraud is apparently a mere cloak for some absurd agenda being dictated by pointy-headed Internet mavens with no concern for the public good and a vested interest in legitimizing Netwar and digital lynching.
Please forward this email to the Director and the Board of Public Citizen, and to Ralph Nader and let them know what you are up to, because you are up to your eyeballs in foolishness."

So now he is upset that Public Citizen would help someone who he is going after.

The point of law and the justice system is to safeguard personal and civil liberties while aiding in the maintenance of a civil and peaceable society; not to be used as a bludgeon in the pursuit of personal, petty vendettas.

This man does his profession and the people he represents a disservice by his actions.

carreon quickmemes

I check this site every day hoping to read another Carreon story. I love this guy and hope he never stops. Please Mr. Carreon, continue to carry on - I look forward to starting my day with a good laugh!

Mr Carreon is doing what he's doing because he feels his reputation and livelihood is at stake. He seems to believe that if he does not maintain the perception of being a legal opponent to be feared, he will not be able to get the kind of high paying cases he prefers to work on.

It's obvious that he's repeating a tactic that has always worked for him in the past, and has no reason to assume the results won't be in his favor.

As for all of us changing his mind by mocking him... He appears to feel that anyone that disagreeing with him are rabble that should just be ignored.

Re:

It's obvious that he's repeating a tactic that has always worked for him in the past ...

... and like so many other stories on this site, in so many other contexts, he is sticking to an Old-School Model despite battling in a New World Playground. Square peg ... round hole. Adapt or die, Chuck.

To those with a legal background:

Please tell me that a letter like that is enough to at least get the people who rule on disbarment of lawyers to look into him.

That's not a civil legal notice, that's not even a threatening legal notice, that's a notice that he intends to do everything in his power to destroy someone's life unless they cave, and to abuse the legal system to do it.

I know the current legal system, and the whole 'equality of justice for all' idea is a joke these days, but really, I would hope an letter like this would be a bit too much for the legal system to swallow.

A lawyer who reprsents...

Carreon is a walking, talking, typing example that a lawyer who has represents himself has a fool for a client.

Not only is he trying to dig to the other side of the planet he's forgetting to shore up the walls as he goes. Not only does he make empty legal threats to people who don't know the law he does the same to lawyers who know the applicable law better than he does.